If a rule put in place by the mods is only abused to try and get people banned/punished that they dislike then the rule is not very good and should be removed completely.
Harassment covers it's own clause and if someone wants to say any words not covered by the censor outside of games then the post should just be removed or then punished if they continue, but moderating HC in games is ridiculous and epicmafia shouldn't be a battleground where mods act as a shield for someone who feels offended about someone using a slur.
you have instances like the report i linked and the example given in this very paragraph where the issue arises. it's honestly ridiculous that 3 offenses of using predetermined slurs can get you the same type of ban that notorious users like ABC who spam on the forums. you can't really make people play nice or even really want to follow your rules and trying to force that where people who are either 1) unaware of the rule 2) don't hold the same social views as you are being banned or violated left and right is not the answer
maybe because none of the zero tolerance slurs affect you, you fail to understand why they are zero tolerance
deletedalmost 9 years
I'm going to be offended on behalf of all the R-words out there (not the ones on the site, because there aren't any).
deletedalmost 9 years
you're right people will change willingly for my own worldviews and if anyone says the r word they are a bad person
deletedalmost 9 years
Maybe people shouldn't act mentally disabled then lolz
deletedalmost 9 years
have u ever thought about maybe not using mental disabilities as an insult? lol
deletedalmost 9 years
i understand the quality control is minimal and HC reports help the quota but im not really feeling a solution to just giving out more and more HC violations
deletedalmost 9 years
i mean we recently just changed HC like a week ago and you're already talking about nuking it.
the list of vio words are in the mod forums where only we can see them so we can say any word is vio worthy
deletedalmost 9 years
you pick the weirdest and most inane stuff to get mad about
deletedalmost 9 years
There's a full list of words that can make someone receive a vio if you say them, so I won't. Instead I want you to know that those words are the first to come to my mind when I read your posts.
how many people have been banned or forum/comment suspended a 2nd or 3rd offender, or even site banned
deletedalmost 9 years
no, i mean it takes 4 HC vios to get a site ban
deletedalmost 9 years
or give him report spam
what happened to reading intent
deletedalmost 9 years
you should give rend trolling because his intent is to troll by trying to give someone a violation
deletedalmost 9 years
i wanna say bad words in this thread to make a point but i'm 1 away from a forum ban. could you say bad words for me retti
deletedalmost 9 years
training and employment services, and drastic cuts to scientific research awards and grants, along with other impacts that would hurt the economy, the middle class, and Americans working hard to reach the middle class. As this bill demonstrates, sequestration funding levels would also put our national security at unnecessary risk, not only through pressures on defense spending, but also through pressures on State, USAID, Homeland Security, and other non-defense programs that help keep us safe. More broadly, the strength of our economy and the security of our Nation are linked. That is why the President has been clear that he is not willing to lock in sequestration going forward, nor will he accept fixes to defense without also fixing non-defense. The President's Budget would reverse sequestration and replace the savings with commonsense spending and tax reforms. It brings middle-class economics into the 21st Century and makes the critical investments needed to support our national security and accelerate and sustain economic growth in the long run, including in research, education, training, and infrastructure. The inadequate overall funding levels in the Republicans' 2016 budget framework, along with misplaced priorities, cause a number of problems with the Subcommittee bill specifically. Overall, according to the Subcommittee, this bill reduces funding by about $2.1 billion, or 5 percent, below the President's Budget. At these levels, the bill makes dangerous tradeoffs that would damage border security, weaken Federal emergency response, and limit national preparedness for future threats and hazards. According to the Subcommittee, the bill does not fund the requested increase in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program
Delete HC
